posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:21 PM
The deceptivness of using the KJV because of its langauge hinders the ability of ones grwoth in faith.
The language of Jacobean English is differant to the languages of today, nobody I know uses the word "Concision" in normal speach. THe KJV is full
of words which have changed in meaning of fallen into disuse since 1611. It is easy, but unproductive to confuse and mislead people by quoting the
scriptures in the archaic langauge of the KJV. We see this all the time where it is almsot allways those who claim that thier own interpitations of
the scriptures is infallible who use the KJV, and they do it because the KJV often requires explination for moderan people, and the in the explination
is is allways possible to insert your own theological bias.
Many who have gone before us in the faith, from John Wycliffe, or Martin Luther onwards, risked thier lives, or gave them for the principle that the
scriptures should be made availible to the people in the common language of the day. in the time of the reformation in England, the scriptures were
availible in the churches and universities in latin, and most educated people could read them. It was not enough, it had to be freely availible, and
it had to be in a langauge which the ordinary people could udnerstand. it is for this reason that bible translators have contuinued thier work in the
past 400 years, and will ahve to continue it for the years to come in human history.
The arguments for using the KJV sound like the same of the 16th centueray for retaining latin, you could almsot hear the patronizing comments about
those who "cannot understand" as if it were their problem they dont understand latin.
the NKJV is better but i still concider it second rate, but at least it is a moderan langue. There is no better way to unsderstand the scrptures then
to learn ancient hebrew and/or greek. The next best thing is to consult 2 or 3 moderan translations. Matters of faith are far too important to be
discussed in obscure and archaic language, espcially with so many alterantives.
here are some examples of confusing using the KJV
Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven
the word "suffer" in KJV has nothign to do with suffering, but has the meaning "Let"
Romans 1:13a Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purpsed to come unto you, (But was let hitherto)
"let" in the above verse means actaully "Prevent" and has this meaning today only in cetain legal contexts.
Psalm 119:147 I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word
"prevented" in this verse is a rendering of the latin word "prevenio" meaning "went before" so the Psalmist is mearly saying he got up before
sunrise, isntead of doing feats that would impress Superman
A large number of words in the KJ new Testement come from the Latin Vulgate, and not the greek. THe translators in the Preface to the readers (which
is often not reprinted these days) said they specifically used the "Old eccliastical words" which had been hallowed by long use withen the Catholic
Church, in preferance to Tyndale's more English Phrases.
Now DanD9 do you mind providing any proof to the statement that the Interantional Bible Society is mainly in the translating business with
their NIV Bible to make money? From what I know they have Translated the new testement into 78 differant languages, and have done 33 complete
translations and have also helped to translate scripture into over 600 differant langauges. Often the bible is used as a way to help and encouraged
struggling people in poor countries to learn how to read.
Persoanlly I used the NIV, becasue I have found it is the most accurate when compared to the orginal langauge, even tho it has a few flaws. Not to
metion it is the msot popular translation into contemorary English.